It has long been an article of faith among gun controllers that the Second
Amendment merely protects the right of states to maintain and arm militias.
Proponents of this "collective rights" argument contend that,
while members of the National Guard may possess guns, everyone else can
be disarmed.

Gun control myths die hard, but this one may finally be on its last legs.
On October 16th, the collective rights theory suffered its harshest blow
yet when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in U.S. v. Emerson that
the Second Amendment was intended to do precisely what it says: guarantee
an individual right to bear arms. After clarifying a widely misinterpreted
Supreme Court case from 1939, the court carefully analyzed the text and
history of the Second Amendment and concluded that the "collective
rights" position was untenable. It remains to be seen what the ultimate
impact of the decision will be, but it does not bode well for future efforts
to disarm Americans.

It is fitting that Emerson should be decided at a time when Americans
seem more concerned about defending themselves than at anytime in recent
memory. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, Americans are buying guns
in droves, and a recent Zogby opinion poll indicates that a majority support
the right to carry guns for self defense.

It is also fitting that the decision should come during a year of serious
setbacks for gun controllers. They lost important allies in the White
House and Justice Department with the election of George W. Bush. Efforts
to cripple gun makers with liability lawsuits have largely failed, with
most of the suits being dismissed. And gun control organizations are experiencing
hard times. The Million Mom March organizers closed their doors and merged
with Handgun Control, Inc. The new organization, which changed its name
to the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" in an effort
to soften its public image, recently laid off nearly 20 per cent of its
workers.

Of course, gun controllers are not retreating yet. They have never been
particularly sensitive to the harsh realities of life and it is unlikely
that recent events will change that. Indeed, at least one organization
has tried to spin the Emerson decision as a victory, and the terrorist
attacks seem to have left many gun controllers in a state of denial. A
Washington Post editorial recently wondered how safe we would all be "surrounded
by edgy people with guns . . . but little or no weapons training."
Luis Tolley, a director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,
commented to the LA Times that "the last thing people want is to
have to worry about whether the guy sitting next to them at a Dodgers
game is carrying a gun."

In fact, it seems clear that the last thing Americans want these days
is to be caught unprepared to defend themselves in a crisis. Compare the
Los Angeles riots, where only armed Korean grocers were able to defend
themselves, with the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, where looting was
virtually nonexistent because South Floridians were armed to the teeth.
In both cases, the police were powerless to protect people. Americans
seem to have learned an important lesson from these events that gun controllers
refuse to face: in times of crisis, you are on your own.

Perhaps the gun controllers' refusal to face reality will finally usher
in their undoing. The aftermath of September 11th has seen many politically-correct
chickens come home to roost. The impact of leftist mischief is being felt
in our military and intelligence communities, police forces, and most
notably in schools and on college campuses. While foolish policies are
the result of bad ideas that must be defeated on their merits (or lack
thereof), a necessary first step is to expose the fools who hold them.
It may seem ridiculous to argue that disarming Americans is a sensible
solution to crime after terrorists armed only with box cutters were able
to pull off the worst attack in American history. But gun controllers
-- bless their hearts -- are still trying, and we can thank them for continuing
to press the party line in the face of all good sense.

While the Emerson decision is not likely to end efforts to disarm Americans,
it may very well mark the beginning of the end of such efforts. For the
sake of freedom, honesty, and good sense, we can only hope that it does.

Steve Simpson is an attorney in Washington, D.C. E-mail him at ssimpson@ij.org.

The
poisoned well by Dr. Michael S. Brown (September 10, 2001)
Some people are suggesting that the two sides of the gun control debate
seek some rapprochement. Dr. Michael S. Brown wonders what the point
would be when one side refuses to tell the truth